Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:22 AM

800 would be acceptable in most cases. I wouldn't go much above that though due to grarinyness becoming a source of pareidolia in pictures. If you do decide to go with a faster film you will have to be very careful of false positives. Conversely if you go too slow, (100 or less) then the extended shutter time will cause a possibility of motion blur if anything moves in the frame. I generally recommend 400 - 800 for general work and anything else only if a special application requires it.

I used to use fujifilm 800 in my old rig. My family had a camera shop, and gave me some info that steered me towards that film being the best. It was a long time ago, but something about it having better color response, and it's low light ability was better. That would be my bet, I shot about 3-400 rolls of it so I can tell ya it's good stuff.

Interests:Everything paranormal, but especially the Bridgewater Triangle. When not investigating the unexplainable, I like to read, write, walk my little white dog Malcolm, garden, cook and paint.

Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:54 AM

Yes, the do still sell them, however, my husband got it at a yard sale. I figured it would be good to use, since digital photography is often viewed as an unreliable form of photography for taking pictures of paranormal activity. DSLR cameras are nice, but really expensive right now.

Apparitions are often confused with hauntings. The difference is that apparitions are "live" (intelligent consciousness) and hauntings are "recordings."- LOYD AUERBACH, interview

Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:09 AM

Film is the only photographic medium which has ANY validity for evidence these days. And even that is minimal unless there is collaborating evidence. A few years ago digital with EXIF data was considered valid. Today however there are even programs that allow one to hoax this data. And anyone with a computer and minimal skill can Photoshop anything to the point that even experts can be fooled. Obviously with that in mind any claim has to viewed with suspicion even if it is legitimate.

When it comes to film with a negative of course that can also be hoaxed but it is not quite as easy. The equipment is rather pricey to do a good enough quality it can't be detected, and some skill is needed beyond what most hoaxers would have. So film can still be considered, but digital photos are pretty much useless except to validate other evidence.